IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 23RDDAY OF OCTOBER 2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD

WRIT PETITION NO.10941/2020(T-IT)

BETWEEN :

SRI. SHABBIR ULLA KHAN, S/O. SANAULLA KHAN, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 24/5, 16TH CROSS, 4THMAIN ROAD, LAKKASANDRA, BENGALURU- 560 030.

... PETITIONER

(BY SRI. MOHAMMED MUJASSIM, ADVOCATE)

AND :

• 1 . THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 7(2) (3), BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, 6THBLOCK, NEAR KHB GAMES VILLAGE, KORMANGALA, BENGALURU- 560 095.
• 2 . THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA, BENGALURU – 560095.

3 . M/S. HDFC BANK, NO.195, 10THCROSS, WILSON GARDEN, BENGALURU- 560 027. REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.

... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. K.V. ARAVIND FOR R1 & R2)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 3.12.2019 AND DEMAND NOTICE DATED 03.12.2019 PASSD BY THE R-1, VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ANNEXURE-B TO THE WRIT PETITION AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED INTIMATION DATED 11.09.2020 VIDE ANNEXURE-G ISSUED BY R-1 TO THE R-3 AND ETC.

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the first and the second respondents.

2. The petitioner has impugned the Best Judgment

Assessment Order dated 3.12.2019 as per Annexure-A and the corresponding Demand Notice dated 3.12.2019 as per Annexure-B. The short ground canvassed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of the petitioner is that

the petitioner did not have notice of the proposed assessment proceedings and as such, the petitioner could not furnish the details. As such the impugned assessment order and consequential demand are liable to be quashed.

3. The learned counsel for the first and the second respondents submits that the impugned order is an appealable order, but a request for stay of the operation of the impugned order would be considered by the appellate authority only if 20% of the amount due as per the impugned assessment order is deposited. Therefore, typically writ petitions are filed impugning the assessment orders on the ground that there is violation of principles of natural justice as this would enable the assessee to avoid the aforesaid deposit of 20%. Even in this case the petitioner cannot complain of violation of principles of natural justice inasmuch as notice of assessment has been addressed to the petitioner on the email ID that is furnished by the petitioner and if the

petitioner has not responded to such notice, he cannot take advantage of his own failure.

4. In the rejoinder, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's registered email is "[email protected]" and no notice has been received, and the petitioner to establish his bona fides is willing to deposit 20% of the amount demanded but the petitioner deserves in law an opportunity to appear before the assessing officer to show cause against the Best Judgment Assessment.

5. In the light of these submissions, and the undisputed fact that the impugned assessment is based on the best judgment and no notice is addressed to the aforementioned petitioner email ID, this Court is of the considered view that it would be just and reasonable to set aside the impugned Assessment Order and the consequential

Demand Notice without expressing any opinion on the merits of the assessment remitting the matter for reconsideration subject to the condition that the petitioner shall deposit 20% of the impugned demand as per the impugned assessment order within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and informing the authorities on email about such deposit. If the petitioner makes such deposit and informs the concerned authority by email, the assessing authority shall extend an opportunity to the petitioner to show cause and decide the question of assessment in accordance with law. It is needless to observe that if the petitioner succeeds in showing cause against the assessment proposed, the 20% in deposit will have to be refunded to the petitioner subject to applicable law.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

SD/- JUDGE

nv